State of Madhya Pradesh and Others vs Bhaskar Dutt Misra and Others

N.D. Ojha, J.—The Plaintiff-Respondent instituted a suit in the court of Civil Judge, Allahabad, inter alias for a declaration that the order dated 17th April, 1982, terminating his services passed by the Defendant-applicants may be declared to be illegal, inoperative and without jurisdiction. The applicants on the receipt of the summons of the suit filed their written statement and inter alias took the plea that the Civil Judge, Allahabad, had no jurisdiction to entertain the suit as no part of the cause of action arose at Allahabad. According to them the Respondent was in employment of the applicants at Madhya Pradesh and his services w-ere also terminated at Madhya Pradesh and consequently the cause of action arose at Madhya Pradesh. Copies of the plaint and written statement have been filed along with the application for stay accompanying this civil revision. Paragraph 24 of the plaint asserts that since the order dated 17th April, 1982 terminating the services of the Plaintiff was served on him at Allahabad, the cause of action arose at Allahabad. The trial court has held that since the order of termination of his services was served on the Plaintiff at Allahabad a part of cause of action did arise at Allahabad and the suit was consequently friable by it. The present revision has been filed against this order.

It has been urged by counsel for the applicants that the view taken by the trial court is manifestly erroneous. Having heard him I find it difficult to agree with his submission. Section 20 of the CPC inter alias provides that subject to the limitations specified earlier every suit shall be instituted in a court within the local limits of whose jurisdiction the cause of action wholly or in part, arises. The question which falls for consideration in the instant case, therefore, is as to whether the cause of action in part arose within the territorial jurisdiction of the Civil Judge, Allahabad. In the written statement this fact has not been disputed that the order dated 17th April, 1982, terminating the services of the Plaintiff was served on him along with the order contained in the letter dated 23rd April, 1984, at Allahabad. On the other hand in paragraph 24 of the written statement it has been stated that service of letter dated 23rd April, 1984, on the Plaintiff at Allahabad did not amount to accrual of cause of action to the Plaintiff to file the suit at Allahabad.

State of Punjab Vs. Amar Singh Harika, it was held that an order of dismissal can only be effective after it is communicated to the officer concerned or is otherwise published. On the allegations made in the plaint and accepted by the trial court the order of termination of services of the Plaintiff-Respondent was communicated to him at Allahabad. It is on such communication that the order became effective. Consequently the trial court was right in taking the view that a part of the cause of action arose at Allahabad. In T.R.S. Mani Vs. I.R.P. (Radio) Private Ltd., . 30 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that where the letter terminating the appointment was posted at Calcutta where the principal was carrying on business and was received by the agent at Madras, there can be no doubt that the termination of the agency was effected at Madras and at least a part of the cause of action arose within the jurisdiction of the court in Madras.

In the result I find no merit in this revision. It is accordingly dismissed.